1

With all due respect to Mr. Vischer's take on George W Bush's "need to account for the fallen nature of office-holders in our government structure," how does he know that Bush hasn't taken that into account? How does he know that Pres. Bush has not confessed his myriad sins to some accountability partner? Christians are not called to confess to the press. And we certainly should not confess our sins to our enemies (the press and enemies are one and the same for Pres. Bush), unless it is them we have wronged. In our current state of affairs, any admission of weakness by our President could mean the loss of more lives.

Frankly, Mr. Vischer reminds me of a letter to our local paper from a pastor who in a previous life was a TV personality and a well-known "hater" of conservatives and Pres. Bush. This pastor “didn’t see any sense of sorrow coming from this self-proclaimed compassionate conservative” with regard to those who have died in the Iraq war. So because this pastor didn't see any sorrow we are supposed to believe that President Bush is some kind of monster who doesn't feel bad about sending people to their deaths. The stupidity and arrogance of this kind of thinking is typical of liberals toward conservatives: conservatives can't be proved wrong about things, but it doesn't matter, because they are evil.

I don't know what Mr. Vischer's views are and I will read further to find out. But the quotes from his post smell like typical Bush bashing.

2

I found your willow creek comments very interesting. The only thing I find more distasteful than blanket acceptance is blanket rejection like that demonstrated by so many toward any successful larger church.

3

I had a similar experience at Willow. I was in Chicago a few years ago for a sociology conference, and I made the drive for my first Willow experience "weekend service". While I had long been appreciative of a number of aspects of Hybels and Willow, I had also become increasingly concerned about the failings in Church Growth Movement. I was ready, notepad in hand, to write down numerous problems.

Not long into the service I put the notepad down. I was surprised at how much their "seeker service" was a worship service. (I thought the worship was for the New Community services during the week.) We sang worship songs, I think a hymn or two among them, and then John Ortberg gave a superb message which clearly delineated worldy patterns of believing/living on one hand, and Christ-centered believing/living on the other. It was not health/wealth, but rather a serious grappling with the promises and benefits that the Gospel has for us in Christ. And of course some useful practicals, for which Willow is famous.

I came in ready to dislike it all but left having worshipped God, having been encouraged in the Gospel, and having been challenged about some patterns of sin in my life.

I wish I could say this episode has been repeated in other famous megachurches. I visited another one recently and left despairing about the complete (I mean complete) absence of Gospel and the barely believable narcissism of the pastor.

But Willow was different. I remain grateful to the Lord for worship that day.

4

Question: How does Vischer vote? How does he feel about the war? How would he, as a Christian, wage war? These things are important because it tells us the foundation of his beliefs, particularly political beliefs, which are not necessarily lifted from the Bible. It looks like he has a somewhat liberal political position, and is trying to equate his positions to being a Christian.

His position: "Whether the accusation pertains to the torture of suspected terrorists..."

He has assumed that we torture our prisoners with abandon, in spite of the fact that we have convicted people for Abu Grhaib, or that there is no evidence of torture in Guantanamo. He couches the issue like a liberal, "accusation pertains to the torture...", but there isn't much difference between his words and Durbin's, for example.

His statement on "the factual premises of the Iraq invasion..." is just another way of saying Bush lied. Not so different from other liberals.

His statement on "the prospect of the government listening in on Americans’ phone calls" is just a restatement of the liberal rant on domestic phone call intercepts, and assumes that the NSA was wiretapping Americans instead of intercepting international calls. Not so different from Feingold, the ACLU, moveon.org, etc.

The problem is that Vischer does little to discover the truth, but simply assumes the worst. Maybe we have killed and tortured half of the prisoners that we captured, but there isn't much proof. He hears phone call intercepts and makes no distinction between internation calls and my calls to my wife. And was Bush's assumption on Iraq's involvement in terrorism and WMD a radical departure from world opinion on those issues?

Vischer seems to be communicating his political and social views in the trappings of Christianity. I'm a Christian, and have the exact opposite view of Vischer in these areas. Does that mean that I have the authority to say that Bush is following God's blueprint for world order and peace, simply because Bush has taken the actions that I would take? No.

We could somewhat apply the philosophy expressed in the 10 Commandments issue. Vischer qualifies as a person "with such ignorance about a topic..." but manages "to display some passionate outrage.." on these issues.

All of that being said, he has the right, both as an American and a Christian, to any and all views, liberal or otherwise. But it should also be pointed out that he is making his views a litmus test for national leadership by a Christian. It just ain't so.

5

As long as I am on this rant, I have a question for JD. Who was the local pastor who “didn’t see any sense of sorrow coming from this self-proclaimed compassionate conservative” with regard to those who have died in the Iraq war..." The reports from family members of those killed and wounded in Iraq are actually just the opposite. They have reported that Bush has shed tears with the families of those who died.

It's another accusation that is a lie. You are right, Vischer is simply a liberal with a cleric's collar, figuratively speaking. Another point of view? Sure. Wrong? Absolutely.

6

Scott:

I think one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are quick to point out that liberals are wrong, while liberals find themselves in the position of saying that conservatives are evil.

7

Scott:

I think one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are quick to point out that liberals are wrong, while liberals find themselves in the position of saying that conservatives are evil. Just go back and look at the discussion about anti-semitism in European socialist states. The liberal posters there are often reduced to saying that we conservatives don't want government spending on social programs because we "just don't care." They cannot conceive of any principled stands against government largesse.

8

I had to chuckle when I saw #6.

6. Bernard from Junto Boyz has a simple request: DEAR MSM, PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR DEFINITION OF "CHRISTIAN" AND "RELIGIOUS RIGHT"

If I was a member of the MSM I think my response would be: "WE WILL WHEN YOU DO".

9

Patrick (gryph) says: If I was a member of the MSM I think my response would be: "WE WILL WHEN YOU DO".
You represent the MSM well.
My response is: They're your terms, you made them up, and you usually use them in attempts to marginalize the opinion of Christians, and now you want us to define them. Well, I guess it's business as usual.

10

My previous post took care of religeous right. As for what defines a Christian it was coined in Antioch more than 100 years after Christ's death not by followers of Christ though they came to accept it (did they have a MSM back then). See Joe's post on what his Christian beliefs entail for a longer more detailed version of what defines Christianity. My short version is one who believes Jesus is God come in the form of man to live a sinless life and die a substitutionary death to redeem sinful man and has asked for the mercy His death provides. Note also that recognizing that Jesus is God puts Him on the throne as King of Kings both in all creation and your life. Though Christians argue about this or that doctrine simple basics like my short version have universal agreement, There are many out there who claim to be Christian and as a Christian, I'm told not to judge whether another person is a Christian or not, but I'm told to judge their message. It's usually pretty easy. The only unforgivalbe sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit exemplified by attributing Jesus casting out demons to the power of Satan and this is an extremely small group, so if you say that God hates any other group your message is not Christian. The Bible tells us that God died for us out of LOVE in spite of our sin. Ro 5:8 But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. If teachings involve race, they are not Christian, God only created one race, the human one. Let me give you a real life example of how it works. A judge in my city signed a divorce decree for two women married in Conn., a marriage not recognized in this state. He didn't notice the names. Enter Phelps et. al. to protest. The anti-Phelps message demonstrators outnumbered the phelps crew 10 or 20 to one and the majority of them were Christians. Well maybe the incident isn't as helpful as I think as it went national where Phelps was always termed a Christian but the facts that he got zero support from the local Christian churches who infact provided most of the oppostition never made it into the story. That old MSM again.

11

Scott,

You say this: "His [Vischer's] statement on 'the prospect of the government listening in on Americans’ phone calls' is just a restatement of the liberal rant on domestic phone call intercepts, and assumes that the NSA was wiretapping Americans instead of intercepting international calls."

This is a false dichotomy. You assume that either the NSA wiretapped Americans or intercepted international calls but not both. The truth is that both have happened, for many international calls wiretapped by the U.S. originated in the U.S. with U.S. citizens. A bit later in your post you seem to say that the NSA would not intercept a call you make to your wife. This assumes that both she and you are in the U.S. If either she or you were not, it was likely intercepted. My wife sometimes travels abroad, and I gather that, if I call her when she is abroad, I must assume that the NSA will record and then comb through the entirety of the conversation. The fact that this is done by computer does little to put my mind at ease.

For what it's worth, the intent of FISA was quite clearly to outlaw such things. The Bush admin.'s respose, I take it, when reduced to essentials is this: Congress never had the right to so restrict the exercise of presedential power in time of war. Decide for yourself whether this is so, but it seems to me that one does not need to be a lib. to worry about this assertion of presedential power.

Franklin

12

For what it's worth, the intent of FISA was quite clearly to outlaw such things. The Bush admin.'s respose, I take it, when reduced to essentials is this: Congress never had the right to so restrict the exercise of presedential power in time of war. Decide for yourself whether this is so, but it seems to me that one does not need to be a lib. to worry about this assertion of presedential power.

Well, you could decide for yourself. Or you could read what the Federal courts have actually decided. For example, here's the FISA Court of Review, ruling in 2002:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

13

Scott,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you provided a link not to a court decision but to a petition written by, among others, the ACLU.

Franklin

14

Congradulates, JD, you just proved his point. You give Bush the benefit of the doubt that he might have taken sin into account. Since virtually no leader in even our allegedly Christian country has done this, what makes you think Bush has done this? He has refused to use the proper channels for the surveillance, the FISA court. He has put himself above the law by saying that if he feels there is an emergency he can do whatever his little heart desires to our civil liberties if he, and he alone, feels that the ends justify the means.

Maybe Bush should be bashed. Your out of step with many major conservatives these days. Apparently people on the right who supported this wishy washy liberal of a President have started to realize that maybe he never was a conservative. He's a bigger spender than Clinton, almost as big of a power grabber and doesn't even pretend that he cares what the public thinks.

15

Franklin--Here is the url of the decision. http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf

16

The truth is that both have happened, for many international calls wiretapped by the U.S. originated in the U.S. with U.S. citizens.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. While it is true that some of the calls intercepted were to international terrorists from within the US, it has not been established that the calls originated with US citizens.